You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Interview with a Planned Parenthood WorkerWritten on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 by Ann-Marie Murrell

Recently while shopping in Los Angeles I saw a young girl collecting signatures for Planned Parenthood. She obviously had no idea who Andrew Breitbart because despite the fact that I was wearing a “Breitbart is Here” t-shirt she approached me to ask if I cared about “free healthcare for women.”

The girl still didn’t seem to mind when I got out my video camera and recorded our conversation (filming her only from the neck down to protect her identity, of course). In addition to telling me about the “extremists on the right” (namely people like me…) who are
“fighting to de-fund Planned Parenthood”, she also talked about how she had struggled in college and was given free pap smears and birth control by her local Planned Parenthood office.

I interrupted her sad, ‘free birth control’ story to ask if she had seen the latest undercover videos by LiveAction.org in which her beloved Planned Parenthood folks had been caught approving sex-selection abortions. I also asked if she realized that the only way to abort a sex-selected baby is around 5 months, when the baby is fully formed in the womb.

The girl claimed told me she didn’t know, but added, “This is America where we’re supposed to be free to choose.”

“Oh but certainly you don’t mean choosing to abort a 5 month old baby simply because it’s a girl instead of a boy, right?” I asked.

The girl just shrugged.

By the way, if you’re not sure what a 5-month pregnant woman looks like, here’s my beautiful friend Marissa who is exactly at the 5-month mark:

And here’s what the FULLY DEVELOPED 5-month old baby inside Marissa’s womb looks like:

But I digress…

I was very polite throughout my entire conversation with the Planned Parenthood worker; I never raised my voice and I wasn’t condescending or rude. My husband was with me and he very politely asked a few questions, too. I posted the video on my Facebook page and of the almost 50,000 people on my pages, only three people defended Planned Parenthood—and all three were my “real life” friends, people I used to go to church with in Los Angeles. Disappointing, to say the least.

Following are some of their actual posts, with my answers in italiacs:

“Ann-Marie, I respect you a lot as a person but doesn’t that seem a bit much? It seems like you were trying to make her feel unintelligent just because she wasn’t up to date on a scandal. You blindsided her.” (I didn’t “blindside” the girl, I was clearly holding my video camera up and was not trying to hide my Breitbart shirt. She called me over to discuss Planned Parenthood, not the other way around.)

“Planned Parenthood provides for a wide range of services for women who may not otherwise seek health care services.” (Yes, Planned Parenthood offers free services to women—and so do many other organizations. The difference is that other places haven’t been caught red-handed offering to abort fully developed babies because they were the wrong sex.)

“Please let us all come together in discussion to consider healthcare in the totality which includes Planned Parenthood as one of the qualitative choices out there. Albeit, like each of us, there is always room for improvement.” (‘Room for improvement?’ Killing 5-month old babies because they’re the wrong sex is simply deemed ‘room for improvement’? Understatement of the year. )

“Since the media discussion of the LiveAction footage is mentioned so much, there has been just as much controversy over the level of editing in those videos and whether they are even remotely representative of the real conversation that occurred. I don’t think that many of the people commenting on this have any foundations for their claims. Have you ever been to a planned parenthood? Because I have, and they serve just as many white people as minorities.” (Seems everyone in the mainstream media and their minions told people to claim the videos were “heavily edited”. Bottom line, there was a beginning, a middle and an end to each of the LiveAction.org videos. Each time the deal was sealed and the Planned Parenthood workers agreed to abort 5-month-old babies because they were girls instead of boys.)

Sigh.

So here is my interview with the Planned Parenthood worker. See for yourself whether I was “too mean” to the girl, or whether you think she should know that she works for a very mean organization…http://youtu.be/gT_7a37TL3Y

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

Interview with a Planned Parenthood WorkerWritten on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 by Ann-Marie Murrell

Recently while shopping in Los Angeles I saw a young girl collecting signatures for Planned Parenthood. She obviously had no idea who Andrew Breitbart because despite the fact that I was wearing a “Breitbart is Here” t-shirt she approached me to ask if I cared about “free healthcare for women.”

The girl still didn’t seem to mind when I got out my video camera and recorded our conversation (filming her only from the neck down to protect her identity, of course). In addition to telling me about the “extremists on the right” (namely people like me…) who are
“fighting to de-fund Planned Parenthood”, she also talked about how she had struggled in college and was given free pap smears and birth control by her local Planned Parenthood office.

I interrupted her sad, ‘free birth control’ story to ask if she had seen the latest undercover videos by LiveAction.org in which her beloved Planned Parenthood folks had been caught approving sex-selection abortions. I also asked if she realized that the only way to abort a sex-selected baby is around 5 months, when the baby is fully formed in the womb.

The girl claimed told me she didn’t know, but added, “This is America where we’re supposed to be free to choose.”

“Oh but certainly you don’t mean choosing to abort a 5 month old baby simply because it’s a girl instead of a boy, right?” I asked.

The girl just shrugged.

By the way, if you’re not sure what a 5-month pregnant woman looks like, here’s my beautiful friend Marissa who is exactly at the 5-month mark:

And here’s what the FULLY DEVELOPED 5-month old baby inside Marissa’s womb looks like:

But I digress…

I was very polite throughout my entire conversation with the Planned Parenthood worker; I never raised my voice and I wasn’t condescending or rude. My husband was with me and he very politely asked a few questions, too. I posted the video on my Facebook page and of the almost 50,000 people on my pages, only three people defended Planned Parenthood—and all three were my “real life” friends, people I used to go to church with in Los Angeles. Disappointing, to say the least.

Following are some of their actual posts, with my answers in italiacs:

“Ann-Marie, I respect you a lot as a person but doesn’t that seem a bit much? It seems like you were trying to make her feel unintelligent just because she wasn’t up to date on a scandal. You blindsided her.” (I didn’t “blindside” the girl, I was clearly holding my video camera up and was not trying to hide my Breitbart shirt. She called me over to discuss Planned Parenthood, not the other way around.)

“Planned Parenthood provides for a wide range of services for women who may not otherwise seek health care services.” (Yes, Planned Parenthood offers free services to women—and so do many other organizations. The difference is that other places haven’t been caught red-handed offering to abort fully developed babies because they were the wrong sex.)

“Please let us all come together in discussion to consider healthcare in the totality which includes Planned Parenthood as one of the qualitative choices out there. Albeit, like each of us, there is always room for improvement.” (‘Room for improvement?’ Killing 5-month old babies because they’re the wrong sex is simply deemed ‘room for improvement’? Understatement of the year. )

“Since the media discussion of the LiveAction footage is mentioned so much, there has been just as much controversy over the level of editing in those videos and whether they are even remotely representative of the real conversation that occurred. I don’t think that many of the people commenting on this have any foundations for their claims. Have you ever been to a planned parenthood? Because I have, and they serve just as many white people as minorities.” (Seems everyone in the mainstream media and their minions told people to claim the videos were “heavily edited”. Bottom line, there was a beginning, a middle and an end to each of the LiveAction.org videos. Each time the deal was sealed and the Planned Parenthood workers agreed to abort 5-month-old babies because they were girls instead of boys.)

Sigh.

So here is my interview with the Planned Parenthood worker. See for yourself whether I was “too mean” to the girl, or whether you think she should know that she works for a very mean organization…http://youtu.be/gT_7a37TL3Y

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

Independent, empowered Planned Parenthood volunteers are making the rounds at the Democratic National Convention this week to remind everyone what’s at stake in this election: “free” birth control.

They haven’t just revamped President Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan for their lady parts-obsessed mission. Team Uterati has even replaced the Obama “O” in “2012″ with a circular pack of oral contraceptives. Check out their t-shirts:

Townhall’s Katie Pavlich attempted to interview one of the volunteers. Like a good little Julia, she let Pavlich know that she’s not allowed to speak to the media. Empowerment!

So they planned on 55 million abortions?Yet they can't plan to pay for their own contraceptives?Keep your uterus out of my wallet,then we can talk.

..

Did you see the sign "don't take away my birth control?" Who is trying to do that? I guess when you can't run on the truth you have to make stuff up.

..

What they meant to say was don't take away YOUR money for MY birth control. Because if you take your money away, I won't be able to afford beer and birth control and I can't live without my liquor!

..

So they "plan" by making someone else pay for their contraceptives?

So if I decide to quit buying my own condoms and demand them for free, this is me planning ahead and not deciding to spend your money and not mine for my purchase?

Any other purchases I can convince you to cover for me?

..

Why don't they have a shirt with an unrolled condom as the "0" in 2012? Is "code pink" going to join planned parenthood in full costume at their rallies? Planned Parenthood does not serve all women, only those that meet their select criteria. I know - been there, tried them years ago. Didn't "qualify".

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

The NY Times delivers a takes a blast at pregnancy centers http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/he...t.html?hp&_r=0 which offer an alternative to the Times vision of abortions for all. Sadly, they can't (or don't want to) quote a single prominent liberal in favor of this implementation of "safe, legal and rare":

WACO, Tex. — With free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, along with diapers, parenting classes and even temporary housing, pregnancy centers are playing an increasingly influential role in the anti-abortion movement. While most attention has focused on scores of new state laws restricting abortion, the centers have been growing in numbers and gaining state financing and support.

Largely run by conservative Christians, the centers say they offer what Roland Warren, head of Care Net, one of the largest pregnancy center organizations, described as “a compassionate approach to this issue.”

As they expand, they are adding on-call or on-site medical personnel and employing sophisticated strategies to attract women, including Internet search optimization and mobile units near Planned Parenthood clinics.

Abortion rights advocates have long called some of their approaches deceptive or manipulative. Medical and other experts say some dispense scientifically flawed information, exaggerating abortion’s risks.

Jean Schroedel, a Claremont Graduate University politics professor, said that “there are some positive aspects” to centers, but that “things pregnant women are told at many of these centers, some of it is really factually suspect.”

That suspicion is not addressed by the Times. However, if we flash back to an Emily Bazelon contribution to the Times from 2010, we learn that abortion providers are embattled victims of the pro-life movement who are fighting back heroically. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/ma...pagewanted=all A bit of flavor:

In many ways, the clinics were a rebel-sister success story. Instead of a sterile and expensive hospital operating room, patients could go to a low-cost clinic with pastel walls and sympathetic staff members. At a Planned Parenthood I visited recently in Rochester, while women were having abortions, they could look at photos of a Caribbean beach, taped above them on the ceiling.

Nearly heaven!

And here is a Times classic:

Other claims include long-term psychological effects. The Care Net brochure says that “many women experience initial relief,” but that “women should be informed that abortion significantly increases risk for” clinical depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, post-traumatic stress disorder and other problems. An American Psychological Association report found no increased risk from one abortion

Do tell. The Guttmacher Institute, a credible pro-choice operation, summarized the APA as follows:

There is no credible evidence that abortion, in and of itself, causes subsequent mental health problems for most women, according to a major report released August 12, 2008, by a task force of the American Psychological Association (APA).

...

The task force draws no conclusions with respect to the mental health of teenagers following abortion, observing that the few studies on that subject suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample sizes, high attrition rates or exclusion of certain groups of teens in a way that could bias the results. It suggests that positive associations between multiple abortions and poorer mental health "may be linked to co-occurring risks that predispose a woman to both multiple unwanted pregnancies and mental health problems."

I can't guess how the Times missed the qualifications about teenagers and multiple abortions. They were careful enough to write "no increased risk from one abortion", but the mathematically-minded will note that having one abortion greatly increases the risk (in fact, it is a pre-condition) for having multiple abortions.

In the interest of fairness and balance the Times does include this in their final paragraph:

All Waco clients [at the pregnancy center] receive nonreligious “options counseling” from volunteers, staff or a licensed counselor who had an abortion. Planned Parenthood’s building looks like the medical clinic it is. It distributes information on prenatal care and adoption, among other things, but does not offer emotional counseling. “We’re our patients’ medical provider,” said Katie Wolfe, the health educator, “not their emotional support.”

Amanda Hall met Care Net’s definition of “abortion-vulnerable.” Twenty-five, pregnant with her second child, her husband in jail, she was facing eviction.

Although uncomfortable about abortion, she checked “undecided,” saying, “I can’t support two kids.”

Care Net let her stay in a house Ms. McGregor owns, found her a job, negotiated debt payment plans, offered Bible study and other classes. She gave birth in March. “Everybody here,” she said, was “like a different family.”

The Times covers this as though it is a bad thing. Well, I am sure they think it is.

Even Guttmacher's blurb admits the actual data are much less black and white than the spin they put on it;

The task force acknowledges that some women experience sadness, grief and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and that some experience "clinically significant disorders" that require the intervention of a mental health professional. Women's reactions to abortion, it suggests, are best understood in the framework of coping with other stressful life events. Moreover, abortion overwhelmingly occurs in the context of an unintended pregnancy—an event that is stressful in and of itself—and it is very difficult to tease apart the effects of these two events. Psychological problems that develop after an abortion, the task force notes, may not be caused by the procedure itself, but may reflect other factors associated with having an unwanted pregnancy, or those unrelated to either the pregnancy or abortion, such as a history of emotional problems or intimate partner violence.

And of course the study only says that about a single first trimester abortion in adults.

My wife and I both know several women who still carry unresolved guilt and/or sadness over one or more abortions early in life. Is there any doubt there are millions more who don't count as having suffered psychological problems sufficient to cross the threshold of the studies but whose lives have been and still are negatively effected by their regrets?[/i]

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

With the morning after pill freely available why are we still enmeshed in this stuff? One has to assume that unintended or unwanted sexual intercourse would prompt any sensible person to head to the pharmacy in the morning.

OTOH I do agree for the NYT it is eugenics.

..

Clarice, the morning after pill is an abortifacient. It kills a fertilized embryo. It is not an alternative to abortion. It is simply a very early abortion.
..

Notice especially the characteristics of the so-called "misleading" pregnancy center advertisement, which the author of the linked article has taken the time to provide.

..

Clarice, 99.99 percent of the time for these women it is not unwanted sex. These are people mostly too lazy or insufficiently worried about the consequences to use birth control. Obviously less than 24 hours later they have not changed their tune enough to go out and get the morning after pill, or use it if they had it.

How anyone could argue against pregnancy centers and for abortion centers is beyond me.

..

That is part of why the Dems capture women's votes by making abortion such a big plank - women who have had an abortion don't want to feel guilty about what they did in college.

..

I suspect many do feel guilty anyway, Porch. As they look at their children today, and feel the power of the love they have for them now, it must hurt on some level to reflect on this other child (or children) of theirs who's life they snuffed out through a deliberate act of their own. They want society as a whole to affirm the choice they made back then (it was my right to kill my child--the constitution says so), because in their hearts they wonder about what that child would have been, and regret the forever loss of this child of theirs whose life they took.

This week's controversy over a race-centric anti-abortion billboard in SoHo—rapidly taken down—came against the backdrop of a broader political battle over federal funding for women's health services. Liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org recently produced this pro-choice spot featuring House actress Lisa Edelstein, in response to efforts by House Republicans on Capitol Hill to cut public money for abortions from the budget. Featuring a persona associated with the medical profession—albeit fictionally—helps drive the ad's message. (House himself, on the other hand, would have offered a surely skewed opinion.)

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

The real war on women: Gendercide on both sides of the pondBy Michelle Malkin • January 11, 2013 10:13 AM

The (U.K.) Daily Telegraph published a front-page article yesterday on the growing trend of sex-selection abortions taking place in the country aimed at exterminating unwanted girls. The apparent rise in gendercide coincides with increased immigration rates from India and China, where the murderous practice is common: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...in-the-UK.html

The Government was on Thursday night urged to open an inquiry after officials found signs that birth rates for girls and boys vary noticeably according to where their mothers were born.

A health minister said that these differences in rates of male and female births among mothers of certain nationalities may “fall outside the range considered possible without intervention”.

It forms the first official statistical evidence potentially backing up concerns that sex-selection abortions are being carried out in Britain.

Andrew Lansley, the former health secretary, last year criticised the “illegal and morally wrong” practice following a Daily Telegraph investigation into the issue.
After this newspaper received information that the procedures were becoming increasingly common for cultural and social reasons, undercover reporters filmed doctors offering women terminations based on gender.

Former MP Lord Alton has been a leading whistleblower:

Last night, Lord Alton said the presence of sex-selective abortion in the UK could be a product of terminations becoming too “routine”.

“Abortion has become so routine in Britain with 600 taking place every day that people have accepted the mantra that it’s just a matter of choice but that’s not what the law says,” he said. “There is a fundamental debate to take place here.”

He said the practice may have been imported from areas of the world where it is more common, including India and China “where sex-selective abortions have taken place on an industrial scale”.

This is the real war on women — and it’s the grisly consequence of “planned parenthood” taken to evil extremes.

Gee, whodathunk. First we abort children because we don’t want another child. Then we abort children because the child is defective in some way and we don’t want the extra burden. Now we abort children because boys are more financially advantageous to us as we age. What next abortion because the sonogram shows they might not be tall enough, or aren’t handsome enough, or God forbid, aren’t genetically perfect enough for us to raise.

..

this is the problem with both abortion and divorce. people think they are making wise decisions, but don’t want to face the results of thier actions. making babies may be fun, but the baby you might make your life complicated, or give you meaning. if you are not prepared for both, don’t fall for the few minutes of fun, protect yourself! same with marraige, you say til death do us part, not until i am tired of you. not that some divorces aren’t neccesary, such as an abusive spouse, but most are just because... I got bored

..

He rejected Lord Alton’s request for data to be collected on the sex of unborn babies at the time of abortion. The minister said recording the gender of foetuses “raises ethical and clinical issues”.

But of course abortion does not! So… they can tell the mother the gender of their unborn child, ostensibly so she ( or more likely her husband can base their Life/Death decision ) but when they’re terminated, it’s nobody’s business!

Got it. Here’s a solution; stop telling these Convenient Conception Couples the damned gender and force them to base their decision regardless. It’s unspoken here but I believe Lord Alton’s underlying concern here isn’t solely for the benefit of the unborn child.

Playing God and tampering w/ nature’s design could ( and likely DOES ) have long term impacts we can’t even BEGIN to understand. So what’s it going to be..?

....

By my calculations planned non-parenthood here in the US performed an abortion on one out of every twenty women of child bearing age in the past year…Bravo!

I want to see them “outed” and posted on a map. I’ll provide the 3D ultrasound picture of my coming granddaughter that shows her sucking her thumb at 4 months in my daughter’s womb. The brave news agency could put the picture under each of the “UNWANTED CHILD” pins on the map…

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

$3,093.60 every three minutes. In the brief time it takes you to read this postl, Planned Parenthood will take in $3,093.60 in taxpayer money.

YOUR MONEY - MY MONEY - OUR MONEY

The billion-dollar abortion giant released its Annual Report this week, and reported taking in a record $542 million last year from federal, state and local governments. This whopping figure amounts to 44% of Planned Parenthood's total revenue.

Imagine the impact if we could eliminate this cash funnel.

Also in their report, Planned Parenthood admitted performing 333,964 abortions. That means this “non-profit” is killing a child every 94 seconds. We know that Planned Parenthood will fight like a cornered animal to protect this money. Just look at how Planned Parenthood went after the Susan G. Komen Foundation after they decided to discontinue funding to their organization. After days of bruising media attacks, Komen finally agreed to continue reviewing grant applications from Planned Parenthood.

You deserve to know the facts. So hold fast. We have much work ahead.

Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 01-18-2013 at 05:58 PM.

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

"That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that," Snow said. "I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

Later another representative asked Snow, “What objection could you possibly have to obligate a doctor to transport a child born alive to a hospital where it seems to me they would be most likely to be able to survive?”

Snow said Planned Parenthood was concerned about "those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that’s the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there’s just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about.”

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?

In a hearing before the Florida state legislature, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow washed her hands of the deaths of babies who accidentally survive the "healthcare" provided by PP:

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Well, the point was to kill the child, after all. So what difference does it make? But most human beings would feel something for a tiny fellow creature fighting for his life, right? Rep. Jose Oliva tried again to get a human response out of Snow:

“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

"That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that," Snow said. "I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

For the record: IL State Senator Obama on the fate of aborted-alive babies
We've referred to this many times since 2008 but in light of the Gosnell serial infanticide case, let's take another look at IL State Senator Barack Obama's statements on why we shouldn't let aborted-alive babies live: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcrip...2/ST040402.pdf

"TEMPORARILY ALIVE"

SENATOR OBAMA: This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was — is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?

Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I — I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. [p. 32 of transcript]

Some of Obama's language is straightforward. He actually uttered the blunt phrase, "to kill a child," and nothing could be clearer than his chilling "limp and dead." But mostly he goes for the euphemisms: "temporarily alive," "previable," and "nonviable fetus."

Kermit Gosnell had his own special terms for what went on in his slaughterhouse. A baby's movements were "reflexes." A breath was a "respiratory excursion." A heartbeat was "pulsation." A baby wasn't born; he "precipitated." (Not inaccurate: many of the children literally fell out of their mothers' birth canals. See p. 33 of report.) And Gosnell didn't kill the babies: he "ensured fetal demise." (Even when they were no longer fetuses.)

The issue was a debate over whether or not Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois (a hospital operated by the denomination of Obama's church) could continue a practice in which a woman's labor could be induced weeks ahead of delivery. Roughly 75% of the children would die in the process, leaving roughly 25% who survived.

Instead of snipping spinal cords, the hospital would leave the children in the now infamous "soiled utility closet" to perish from exposure and neglect. Sometimes these children would expire in 45 minutes. Many times the children would struggle for life for the full 8 hours of a nurse's shift. And on multiple occasions the children would live for nearly a day.

Jill Stanek, one of the pediatric nurses who worked in the department while this practice was on going later testified before Obama's committee.

Obama's response? (According to Stanek?)

Roughly paraphrased: If a woman entered the hospital with the intent of seeking an abortion, then it was the woman's choice to allow that child to live or die. (Should it survive the induced labor.)

To be clear President Obama is the one and only ever elected federal office holder that has voted in favor of such procedures, and he did so three times, on the record.

All of which leaves me puzzled.

Why is Gosnell a monster, if so many people, including our own president believe it to be the fullest expression of "women's rights" to simply do what he was doing?

Laissez les bon temps rouler!Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynniIS THAT BETTER ?